nimh wrote:May I ask you, Joe, what moved you to bring up this subject?
If you read my dialog with
dlowan I think you'd get a sense of why I brought this up. But I don't want to get involved in a discussion of involuntary treatment of alcoholics (although my remarks may have invited such a discussion): it's an interesting topic, and I'd be willing to join in a discussion of the issue on a new thread, but it is largely tangential to the present inquiry.
To tie my remarks briefly to the theme of this discussion: there have been a few comments here asserting, in effect, that Rich has no responsibility beyond the donation -- in other words, that once Rich give Rags the dollar, Rags has the option to do with it what he will and Rich is free of any further responsibility. Yet if we recognize that alcoholism can impair judgment, then why would anyone feel justified in "respecting" Rags's judgment in connection with the dollar? If, for instance, Rags were suffering from dementia, we wouldn't say: "Rich can offer Rags treatment, but what Rags does with his treatment is entirely up to him."
It's not so much a question of Rags's responsibility -- the hypothetical, remember, does not inquire into the morality or immorality of his actions. Rather, it is a question of
Rich's responsibility. By giving his dollar to someone who, he can confidently predict, will use the money to perpetuate a potentially fatal condition (in this case, alcoholism), can Rich absolve himself of responsibility for that consequence by noting that what Rags does with the dollar is entirely up to him?